Restrictions in a lease necessarily suppose that the framer of them possessed more knowledge of farming, than he whose operations are thus to be directed. \Ve leave the public to judge whether this can actually be the case or not. Leases in many counties are often copied from one generation to another, without paying any attention to recent improvements. How is it possi ble for an attorney, or his clerk, to lay down rules for the farmer's direction ? Allowing it is the steward, or even the proprietor himself, that dictates these rules, WC are warranted to say, it is naturally impossible they can be wisely and judiciously framed. Laying aside the consideration of their fettering the farmer's mind, and clogging his operations, such restrictions or rules may, from alteration in markets, be unprofitable ; and, from the vicissitudes of seasons, improper to be ex ecuted.
Every farmer knows from experience, that the pro per manner of cultivating land is only to be learned from an intimate acquaintance with the nature of its soil, and that what is very good management upon one farm, is often very bad upon another. Restrictive cove nants suppose all to be alike, that grass is of equal benefit on all lands, and that the same quantity of lime should be administered to a light loam as to a strong clay. Besides, in framing these covenants, it is taken for granted, that a person, from a cursory view, is at once able to determine upon the best mode of manage ment for the endurance of a whole lease ; or, in other words, that his judgment is equal to that of the whole tenantry of an estate. In short, restrictions are inimical to good husbandry ; they sink the farmer into a state of insignificance ; they contract his mind, and lock up his ideas from searching after new schemes, which is the only method by which improvements can ever be found out; and therefore it follows, that a continuation of cove nants is highly detrimental, not only to the public good, but even to the interest of the proprietor himself, by lessening the rent that a superior cultivation, arising from a spirit of improvement, would be able to pay.
We are ready to admit, that general rules of manage ment are very proper in leases, such as, to keep the hum• in good order, to consume all the straw raised upon it, and to sell no dung. These restrictions we will allow ; and every good farmer will follow them whether he is bound to do so or not. Nay, we will go farther :—If leases of a proper duration were granted, it is very reasonable that the property of the landlord should he protected by restricting clauses, for the three years previous to their expiration. But after all, it will be found that no clause can be inserted, besides the general ones already mentioned, that will serve to enhance the value of the land, except obliging the farmer to leave a proportional quantity of such land in grass at the expira tion of the lease, and specifying the manner in which that land is to be sown down. Other clauses serve only
to distre,s the farmer, but will never promote the in terest of the landlord.
In a word, as the landed proprietor can rarely faint his own lands to advantage, it is necessary when he puts them under the management of others, to invest these persons (generally called tenants) with discretionary powers, or, in other words, with powers to do every thing respecting their cultivation which he himself could have done, otherwise he cannot expect to receive under the name of rent, the full natural value of his property. It must be remarked, however, that proprietors, in gene ral cases, consent with reluctance to part with the com mand and management of their land when conveyed for a temporary period, reserving as much control over it as posSible ; though it is plain that every reservation made, lessens the tenant's power to pay them a high rental. This is not the case with the moneyed man; he does not understand, nor pretends to understand, the secrets of the trade, or manufacture, in which his mo ney is invested, and therefore places his confidence in the man, and not in his measures. Why should the landholder act differently ? or why should he affect to direct the whole fit•ming operations during the course of a lease ? A resident proprietor, who has paid atten tion to farming, may attempt such direction without any great degree of absurdity, though never without lessen ing the sum of rent covenanted to be paid ; but it is ridiculous to sec such direction claimed by law-agents, to whom the management of large estates is chiefly intrusted, and who know little inure about farming, than the moneyed man does about the manufacture of muslin, or linens. The utility of some restrictions at the con clusion of a lease, we have already admitted, chiefly be cause without them a farm might he thrown out of shape and the management of the succeeding tenant embarras sed for severaYyears. As for the injury alleged to be committed, by what is called cross cropping, we are rather sceptical on that point, and confess it to be our opinion, that the real value of the soil cannot be less ened by any mode of cropping, though undoubtedly its artificial value, namely, that whiCh it gains from being grazed and immured, may in that way he dissipated. Taking a broad view of the matter, we are inclined to consider restrictive covenants as totally superfluous, unless so far as they tend to maintain a regular course of cropping at the conclusion of the lease, and preserve the farm in a husbandman-like condition, at the entry of the succeeding tenant.